Notices
996 Forum
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: LN Engineering

996 What best year?

 
Old 01-31-2013, 07:13 PM
  #46  
b8_rdc
User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Actually we all agree a 99 with one MK I light and other as MK II an 8 chain 3 row bearing with rear window in glass with plastic covering. Cup holders added.
b8_rdc is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 07:42 PM
  #47  
Cefalu
User
 
Cefalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by white99c2 View Post
I drive a '99 that was manufactured in March of 1998. This car really is the best most reliable car I've ever owned. So I'm +++ on the 99's.
I've replaced, wheels, tires, complete audio system, every exterior light fixture and 99% of most people ask me of its new. Blows my mind every time I hear that. My car has been on the road for 15 years this coming May.
My 6/98 996 is not quite the most reliable car I have owned, but close. My 2005 Toyota 4runner gets that award. The 996 is second.

But that's only because I preemptively changed the IMSB and AOS on the 996, although both were working fine. Oh yeah, I just replaced a window regulator too.

And yes, most of my friends think my '99 is still a new car, it looks new and still drives tight. Best bang for the buck I've ever had.
Cefalu is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 09:12 PM
  #48  
kromdom
Super User
 
kromdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mrjr1000 View Post
I have decided the 996 is the best entry point for "capturing" the dream. My question to all or any who might be interested is this: Should I consider all MY's or avoid the early ones?
To this, I suggested the OP buy the "newest" 996 he can afford.

BUT I do not know much about cars so disregard what I suggested and listen to Cefalu instead.
kromdom is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 09:18 PM
  #49  
B r i a n
User
 
B r i a n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I would drive a Mk I & a Mk II and see which you like the feel of better.
Then buy the Mk (whichever you choose) car in the best condition with the options you like best - regardless of the year.
B r i a n is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 09:25 PM
  #50  
kromdom
Super User
 
kromdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by B r i a n View Post
I would drive a Mk I & a Mk II and see which you like the feel of better.
Then buy the Mk (whichever you choose) car in the best condition with the options you like best - regardless of the year.
Might not be bad idea to also listen to Brian Heck, make this a sticky
kromdom is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 09:49 PM
  #51  
Barn996
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Barn996's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kittery, Maine
Posts: 11,795
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Born date of 3/99 with 63k miles with original xxx.
Barn996 is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:10 PM
  #52  
TexasRider
Late Porkchops
Rennlist Member
 
TexasRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Houston, Texas USA
Posts: 12,451
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by B r i a n View Post
I would drive a Mk I & a Mk II and see which you like the feel of better.
Then buy the Mk (whichever you choose) car in the best condition with the options you like best - regardless of the year.
Good post.

Y'all help a Texas RL-er out here. I have had a 951 for years and it is in top show winning shape cosmetically and mechanically. While I truly like the car, I have been looking to change to something I would drive more for a while. But I have been looking at Caymans.

Recently I looked at a 2003 Carrera and while it had the color I wanted and it felt "nice" I did not spring for it as it had only a sketchy history and had a couple of large engine works under warranty. But very few records over all, so I passed on it. But I was surprised at how great it felt from the wheel. Heavier, but planted. Great for real road driving.

I have recently seen a couple of very nice 1999's. My other Porsche buddies think I am going from one step child (the 951) to another ( the 996). I have been here before.

But this thread, and especially with Jakes endorsement emboldens me on the 1999's I saw. Enough to go for a real look and with a checkbook.

Of course I would look for records and some PPI, but besides the IMS, what are the deal killers for a 1999. Or a 2003 for that matter, as those would about bracket it for me. RMS is a problem but not the end of the world I would guess. And it goes with the clutch I would suspect.

My indie shop here says all 996's need a clutch. All the time. If you drove it since you put a clutch in, you are at 50% , or while you are in there is always a clutch. Ok maybe on that.

He also feels that every switch and electrical component will fail. Yikes - my 1986 951 has had no such problems and only now is the instrument cluster out for bulbs at 92,000 miles and 27 years.

He says look for the 2003's. For interior, for electricals and for better mechanicals.

But I like Brians approach too.

I am out looking - so pile in here if you want. I might soon be in the 996 Forum . Thanks.

Last edited by TexasRider; 01-31-2013 at 11:10 PM. Reason: sp
TexasRider is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:38 PM
  #53  
joseph mitro
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
joseph mitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,200
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by etwd View Post
earliest 99 you can find. Porsche put everything in and it went down from there

Remember 'gone in 60-seconds' when they drove the 996 through the Dealership window? That was a 99 C2! I fell in love and went out and bought my Speed Yellow 6-speed......
Love your speed yellow with RUF wheels!
joseph mitro is offline  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:51 AM
  #54  
jasper
User
 
jasper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: north vancouver
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

My 2002 has treated me very well, but the original owner not so much. He had the engine replaced in 2005 (an M97( and I've been reaping the benefits.

I actually prefer the MkI lights too, but not enough to base a decision on them, and my car weighs in at 3000 # dead - so light enough.

LSD sounds good though.
jasper is offline  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:02 AM
  #55  
KrazyK
Super User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

According to blown engine stats and early M96 problems, the best years are 2002+.

Last edited by KrazyK; 02-01-2013 at 12:58 PM.
KrazyK is offline  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:46 PM
  #56  
trapperdog
User
 
trapperdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Flat6 Innovations View Post
The earliest 1999 you can find!

Thats my personal opinion, but its based from aspects most wouldn't consider.
Is May of '98 early enough?
trapperdog is offline  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:49 PM
  #57  
Cefalu
User
 
Cefalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by KrazyK View Post
According tp blown engine stats and early M96 problems, the best years are 2002+.
Is there an objective accounting of blown engine stats somewhere, or are you referring to the random rantings of Rennlist postings?
Cefalu is offline  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:29 PM
  #58  
KrazyK
Super User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I guess you could use this:

Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year:

2008: 42, about average, stricter recalibrated scale

2007: 29, better than average

2006: 38, better than average

2005: 34, better than average

2004: 50, better than average, small sample size

2003: 46, better than average

2002: 67, better than average

2001: 80, better than average

2000: 44, better than average

1999: 117, worse than average

We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds," to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop.
KrazyK is offline  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:35 PM
  #59  
Cefalu
User
 
Cefalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by KrazyK View Post
I guess you could use this:
You said "Blown Engines" Are you inferring that a repair trip equals a blown engine?

What was the source of your cite?
Cefalu is offline  
Old 02-01-2013, 01:41 PM
  #60  
KrazyK
Super User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

There are several mag/tech articles about the 3.4's problems vs. 3.6. The general consensus is 3.6 solved many of the 3.4 problems even though it had its own issues as well.
KrazyK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 996 What best year?


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: